In a surprising intervention at Ethiopia's National Dialogue last year, the Ethiopian National Defense Force proposed restructuring the country's federal system from ethnic-based regions to geographic divisions—a suggestion that has sparked intense debate about the future of Ethiopian federalism.
The proposal, which surfaced during discussions meant to chart Ethiopia's political future, challenges the ethnic federalism model enshrined in the 1995 constitution. That system divided Ethiopia into regional states organized primarily along ethnic and linguistic lines: Oromia for Oromos, Amhara for Amharas, Tigray for Tigrayans, and so on.
"Ethnic federalism was supposed to empower marginalized groups," says Dr. Merera Gudina, a political scientist at Addis Ababa University. "But in practice, it has also entrenched ethnic identity as the primary unit of political mobilization. When every political question becomes an ethnic question, it's harder to build national consensus."
The ENDF's intervention is notable for several reasons. Militaries typically avoid constitutional debates, especially in countries with histories of military rule. That Ethiopia's armed forces felt compelled to weigh in suggests deep institutional concern about the sustainability of the current system, particularly after the devastating Tigray conflict that killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions.
Proponents argue geographic federalism could reduce ethnic tensions by creating regions based on terrain, resources, and infrastructure rather than ethnicity. Critics warn it could be a backdoor attempt to dismantle the autonomy ethnic groups won through decades of struggle against centralization.
Jawar Mohammed, an Oromo political analyst and activist, has voiced skepticism. "Geographic federalism sounds neutral," he told supporters in a recent address. "But who draws the boundaries? Who decides which groups end up in which geographic unit? These are deeply political questions that can't be solved by pretending ethnicity doesn't matter."
The debate is far from abstract. Ethiopia's ethnic federalism has produced both positive outcomes—greater representation for historically marginalized groups—and destructive ones, including ethnic-based violence and territorial disputes. The question of whether to reform or replace the system divides Ethiopian intellectuals, politicians, and ordinary citizens.
Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has sent mixed signals. His Prosperity Party sought to transcend ethnic politics by merging regional parties into a national coalition, but his government has also faced accusations of centralizing power and undermining regional autonomy. Whether he supports the military's proposal remains unclear.
Constitutional scholars note that any change to Ethiopia's federal structure would require significant political consensus—precisely what the country lacks after years of conflict. "You can't impose a new federal model on a divided society," says Dr. Tsegaye Regassa, a constitutional law expert. "It has to emerge from genuine dialogue, which means all stakeholders need to feel their concerns are being addressed."
The National Dialogue process itself has faced criticism for limited participation and questions about whether its recommendations will carry weight. But the military's proposal has succeeded in forcing a conversation Ethiopia has long avoided: whether ethnic federalism, for all its flaws, can be reformed—or whether the country needs a fundamentally different model.
"This isn't just about administrative structures," notes Dr. Gudina. "It's about what kind of country Ethiopia wants to be. A federation of ethnic homelands? A unitary state with token regional governments? Or something genuinely new?"
For now, the proposal remains just that—a suggestion floated during a dialogue process with uncertain outcomes. But in a country where constitutional debates have historically ended in war, the fact that the military is proposing structural reform is itself significant.
54 countries, 2,000 languages, 1.4 billion people. Ethiopia's federal experiment matters far beyond its borders—and its future remains deeply uncertain.
